User talk:Kotra/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kotra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Janet Jackson

would you mind doing a copy edit of this article for me? I'm quite terrible at proof reading my own work. I also have Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814, Batgirl (current FAC) and Batwoman, though I wouldn't ask you to go through the trouble of all editing all of them, unless you are simply bored or any other these articles peeks your personal interest. Thanks for your consideration. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm almost done with Janet Jackson. Mostly it's already good, I'm just doing minor stylistic preferences for the most part. -kotra (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I finished the copyedit offline several days ago (on the 29th or a little later), but I haven't had internet since then (I've been traveling). There have been quite a few changes to the article since I started, so I don't think I'll be able to get around to reconciling my version with all the changes. If you want to give it a stab, though, my copyedited version can be found here (without the <nowiki> at the top and the </nowiki> at the bottom). My notes (written on the 29th, so may be obsolete now):

Corrected a few spelling and grammar errors.
Moved commas and periods outside of "quoted text" unless they were part of the quote. This is just my personal preference, feel free to revert if you prefer it the original way.
I wikilinked all the first instance of every year, even if it wasn't in a full date. Not sure if this is recommended practice or not, I couldn't find any mention of linking years by themselves in the Manual of Style. Feel free to revert.
I used serial commas for consistency within the article.
I think janet. should be capitalized at the beginning of the sentence (as uncapitalized nouns always are). In fact, janet. perhaps should always be capitalized, like all-lowercase trademarks apparently should be. Then again, that's for trademarks, not album titles. Are album titles trademarked? I'm not sure. In any case, I haven't changed it. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
I checked a couple of the citations, and there seemed to have been some liberties taken with the text they were placed after, so some fact-checking may be in order.
The list of references at the end will probably need to be converted to inline citations if a Good Article is your goal.

I don't think I'll be able to get to the other articles either anytime soon, I've been particularly busy lately. But thanks for thinking of me! -kotra (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh goodness! I'd forgotten to check and see your reply. I've done so many changes your version is probably out-of-date. Plus, I assumed you would have simply edited the article directly rather than using your sandbox. I'll have to look though it to see what I can currently change based on your sand box. Thanks for responding to my request! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's my fault for taking so long. I was editing the article directly, but it turned out to be much longer than I expected, so I continued editing it in a text editor while I was traveling and without internet, and then saved it to my sandbox once I had internet back and realized so many changes had occurred. My summary above covers most of my edits, but I won't be offended if it proves too difficult to salvage anything from my copyedit. I learned about Janet Jackson, so it wasn't wasted time. (right?) -kotra (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

hehe. my new catch phrase since I saw her at the GLAAD Media Awards is: JANET! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind trying to copy edit this article once more? Its currently in peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Janet Jackson/archive1 and I'm trying to get it promoted to FA. Hence, the prose needs to be "brilliant". The article if fairly stable (i'm typically the only person who edits) so if you choose to do so, I'd recommend editing it directly with the {{PACEinuse}} tag in place. Thanks for you previous effort. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have the stamina to copy edit it again, at least not at the moment. It is a very long article and real life has been sucking up most of my precious Wikipedia time recently. Besides, if it's currently in peer review I would prefer to wait until that's over, in case specific concerns are raised with the prose. If the prose could still use some work in a week or two, let me know and I might be available then. Thanks for thinking of me! -kotra (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

okie dokie. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Haven't talked to you in a while. Just saying Hi! And I got Janet to FA. :) And it was passed on my B-day no less. How are your project coming along? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done with Janet (Janet Jackson, right?). And happy birthday, Ms. Of The Occult! I hope it was a good one. I've been too busy with work lately to afford much time to Wikipedia, but that's easing up now. I'm helping out with a new wikiproject, WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. That's my only project at the moment, hopefully I'll have time to finish up old ones soon! Anyway, thanks for the note, hope you're doing well. -kotra (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal note from Caden

Hi Kotra. I thought you should know, since you're my adopter, that over the last couple of days I haven't been too happy around here. To be completely honest with you, I've been deeply disturbed due to several personal attacks that were made against me by a user that personally really hurt. I'm only human, I do have emotions and I feel things. I'm not some kind of heartless machine. It triggered all kinds of negative and painful things from my past. It's been difficult. As a survivor, I live with what happened to me each and every single day of my life. I don't need others to remind me of how I was raped violently as a young child. I don't deserve that. I need some time away to sort out my thoughts and feelings. I think it's best for me to take a small wikibreak. I will try to pop in here if I can. In the meantime I'm just going to spend my free time helping my girlfriend with some packing. I need to focus on happy thoughts rather than focus on past negative experiences. I'm sorry to bother you with all this. Thanks for all your help concerning Wikipedia. I couldn't of found a better adopter. Caden S (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you've been personally attacked recently. I haven't seen the attacks you're referring to, unless you mean the anonymous vandalism attacks on your user page (which were horrible and cruel, the user(s) were blocked for their actions, and further vandalism can be prevented by requesting your user page be semi-protected here). If they aren't the ones on your user page, let me know and I'll investigate them and see what I can do.

Anyway, if you feel you need a wikibreak, I understand completely. Sometimes it gets too hostile around here even for me, and I myself have taken a break or two before. If you think you're ready to come back again sometime, I'll be glad to see you back. If you think it would be better for you to stay away though, for your sake, then I would understand that too. Whichever you end up doing, good luck to you and I hope your wounds continue to heal with time. I'm happy to be your adopter, and you certainly haven't bothered me. I'm glad to help. -kotra (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kotra for helping to protect my user and talk pages! Caden S (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I hope you had a good wikibreak! -kotra (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I did but I was very busy. My girlfriend and I moved into a really great area, we got a dog and I'm back at school. I hope you have been doing good yourself. Caden S (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm in the process of moving myself, but things are going well here. Thanks for asking! -kotra (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem and that's great that you're moving. Good luck with that! Caden S (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kotra. Sorry to bother you but I could use some feedback from you or some guidance concerning the E. O. Green School page. Could you please have a look and let me know if I am going about it in the correct way? One editor accused me on the talk page of being hostile when infact I honestly was not. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Caden S (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, could you please archive most of my talk page for me like you did before? I'd like you to archive section 1 (called "Options") through section 24 (called "Your Note"). Thanks! Caden S (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. -kotra (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My editor review

Hey thanks for the advice you gave on the review! It has been sitting on that page for so long that I had almost forgotten about it. And regarding that God of War article, let's just say it's a good reminder to myself that skimming paragraphs is not a good method of picking out mistakes. Thanks again! -Samuel Tan 02:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Editor Review is one of the most neglected back-end areas of Wikipedia (the Articles Needing Copy Edit backlog being another). No problem. -kotra (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit progress

We seem to have radically different numbers for the copyedit progress, unless something really big was done between yesterday and today. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to the number I gave for the number of articles in CAT:COPY, I got the number from Category:All articles needing copy edit, which is a subcategory of CAT:COPY. Is that the wrong way? -kotra (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but it does explain the difference. I was just wondering if I was missing something I should incorporate in the graph, essentially.I should probably add a bar for other articles. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It was my first time updating the number, so I wasn't sure if I did it right. I don't know how you came up with your number, but we should probably find out if either of our methods is the same one User:Samuel Tan used for his earlier numbers. Therefore, I've left a message on his talk page; we'll see what he says. -kotra (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of articles needing copy edit

Hi Samuel, User:Falcon Kirtaran and I came up with two radically different numbers for the number of articles in CAT:COPY (listed on both the CAT:COPY page and WP:WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit). The method I used was to use the number of articles in CAT:COPY's subcategory Category:All articles needing copy edit. I'm not sure what method he used, but he says my method is correct. I wanted to make sure, though: was this the same method you used? I want to make sure we're all using the same method, so the statistics don't get wonky. -kotra (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kotra! Sorry, wasn't able to reply earlier because I have been shifting furniture and stuff around the house the whole day.

Yes, I think that manually counting the articles in CAT:COPY, including subcategories, is the correct way, although (if my guesses on how the category works are correct) you would have to include the articles listed in CAT:COPY itself (i.e. not in subcategories), because those are the articles whose {{copyedit}} tag have not been dated by a bot.

The reason why the total number of articles per the WikiProject's main page is lower than what you get when counting CAT:COPY itself, is that (1) Erwin85Bot (talk · contribs) counts the pages only once a day, and (2) Erwin85Bot does not count those few articles whose tags have not been dated (as mentioned above), and are hence not yet thrown into a "per month" subcategory. -Samuel Tan 12:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll be moving furniture myself in a few days.

Thanks for the explanation. It seems that the number in Category:All articles needing copy edit is more accurate than the method you describe here (just counting the month subcategories). But if your method is the method we've been using (for the graph, for example), maybe we should keep using it anyway. We should probably decide on one way or other, though I don't have a strong opinion either way. What do you think? -kotra (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Yeah that would be the most accurate. I totally forgot about that category. *hits myself with a baseball bat* What we could do is use the number in CAT:COPYEDIT whenever we need a figure for total number of articles, and use the numbers in the monthly sub-cats whenever we need monthly figures. -Samuel Tan 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like the best solution. -kotra (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've got Erwin85Bot to count the total number of articles, on the right panel of the project page. Thanks for letting me know about that category; it somehow never occurred to me to get it bot-counted. I suggest we can get Erwin85Bot to count that category whenever we need a figure for total articles. -Samuel Tan 04:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I can't say I know how to use bots, but you seem to have that taken care of anyway. Thanks for all your hard work on this project, by the way! -kotra (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		A barnstar to tell you that all your help with our WikiProject is appreciated. You know how to get things moving! :) Samuel Tan 17:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh hey, thanks! Can't say I'm any better at it than you, though! -kotra (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Caponata merge

Concerning your question on my talk page, I merged Caponata into the Eggplant salads and appetizers page because since it is an eggplant appetizer, I decided it should be on the page, along with other eggplant dishes. I forgot to add the references if there were any (I don't remember if there were any references). I could find some references and add them myself, or I could put a 'needs references' template to the section. Please don't revert the merge back. Thanks, grade4 (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

>>Here's a solution: we can have both a standalone Caponata article and a short description of caponata in Eggplant salads and appetizers, using a Main template like this. ... By the way, I also notice you have merged several other dishes into Eggplant salads and appetizers, when they are more properly their own articles. I can fix these as well.

Sure, you could do that. I'm a bit of a newbie at merging anyway. Thanks, grade4 (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Chili cookoff merge

On this page, Chili cookoff was under C. I merged it into Cook-off as requested, and I deleted the merge template on the Chili cookoff page. grade4 (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good article nominee

Hi Kotra. The Jesse Dirkhising page is currently a good article nominee. Could you have a look at it and let me know what you think? In particular, could you let me know if you think there are still POV issues left? In the past this article was filled with too much POV and there were some heated discussions on that. Regardless, I trust your opinion and would appreciate your thoughts on this. Caden S (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read it through, and overall it seems to be pretty good. There are many different viewpoints given, all sourced. However, I was unable to verify some of the sources, so I don't know for sure if all the quotes and statements are accurate. Especially it makes me a little uneasy to use the Pat Buchanan book as a source so many times, for statements that are given as fact, not just Buchanan's opinion). But then again, those statements seem pretty uncontroversial. So I think it's probably ok, POV-wise. But I wouldn't know for sure unless I could verify all the sources. -kotra (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to do that. I agree with you that the article looks okay, POV-wise. But still, it's rather odd that a single source would be used so often (Pat Buchanan) and that sends a red flag up for me. If you weren't able to verify some of the sources, then how do we know if the quotes and statements used are accurate? I don't know but I sense another red flag here. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm right. Perhaps, you could make a note of this (not being able to verify some of the sources) on the talk page? I've more or less taken a break from the Dirkhising main article. Specifically for two reasons: it's nearly identical to my own personal story as well as for past conflicts with an editor. Caden S (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty often I come across references on Wikipedia that aren't available online. Though this means I usually can't easily verify them myself, they're still considered ok for Wikipedia, because in theory someone could find these sources at a library. So I don't think those sources are a big problem, and I think there are probably no POV problems in the article, basically because the unavailable sources aren't used to back up any weird claims, and because the few references I've been able to read seem to agree in general with the article. In any case, I think it's a wise decision to recognize your own closeness to this topic and leave it to other editors (I myself am a bit disturbed by the topic, so I can't imagine how you feel about it). I will make a note on the talk page about the Buchanan reference. -kotra (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thanks. Yes, I agree that someone could find those sources at a public library. I can also see your point on how the sources are not a big problem here since they are not used to back up weird claims. My main concern was any hidden POV issue, but the article looks mostly okay to me, and I trust your opinion. However, you're more than correct on my feelings concerning the topic's personal relation to my own situation. It's both disturbing and uncomfortable for me. It hits home in more ways then one. Nevertheless, I try my best to remove myself from it. Caden S (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize. On Wikipedia, just keep a cool head when you can, and let others worry about it when you can't. That's my philosophy, seems to have worked for me so far. -kotra (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. And yes, keeping a cool head and letting others worry about it, is good advice. Caden S (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Shanna Moakler

Could you do me the favor of having a look at Shanna Moakler's article? I've been editing quite a bit on that page. I've cleaned it up somewhat. I've added a few citations, used reliable sources, added a bit of info, corrected sentences for better flow, re-worked many one or two sentence paragraphs into existing content. I've fixed a few wikilinks or added others. I added to the prose a bit and checked and read nearly all of the sources that were provided by other editors. Anyways, if you have the time, I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. Thanks. Caden S (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is surprisingly good; I think it would probably qualify as a good article. I cleaned up a few punctuation and formatting bits, but I didn't see hardly anything to improve. It reads well, and I see you had a significant part in that. Good job. If you feel like it, you could nominate it, I think it has a good chance of passing. -kotra (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, it is a pretty good article on Shanna. I have just nominated it for WP:GA. Thank you for cleaning up the punctuation and formatting bits as well. I do appreciate that. Yes, it's true I played a significant role in improving this article. I pretty much busted my balls to get it to flow properly and to get it to at least appear as a good article nominee, according to Wiki guidelines. I hope my hard work pays off with it being passed soon. I'll have to wait and see. Caden S (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! -kotra (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Message on User_talk:GSK

Thank you for your feedback. I've determined from your comment and from Wikipedia policy, and I've decided to remove the line you are referring to. I appreciate you bringing that to my attention before it could've got worse. Take care. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 04:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for removing it. -kotra (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages (or prohibits according to some) corporate names. GSK is name of a very large pharmaceutical company, formerly known as Glaxo Smithkline. I don't mind the name and will not do anything about it. Some administrators block it. That seems a bit harsh. 903M (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This issue comes up occasionally on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names. The problem would be if the user is shown to have a username that is promoting a company. With acronyms, that's hard to prove. Obviously User:Microsoft would be inappropriate, but User:MS probably wouldn't be. Names like User:GSK would almost certainly be considered ok, because it's apparent from his/her userpage that GSK stands for "GameShowKid". But it's interesting to see where the line is drawn sometimes. -kotra (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the last 7 years I've used this name (3 being on Wikipedia), no trouble has come from it. I'm well aware of GlaxoSmithKline, and quite frankly, I don't care. It's not like I'm going around calling myself GlaxoSmithKline. If I was, I can see the problem, but since I'm not, I'd like to request that you leave this alone. You're the first to bring it up during my entire stay at Wikipedia, 903M. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 04:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with your name. I think 903M was just saying that although s/he personally has no problem with your username, s/he thought an administrator would probably eventually come along and block your name. But I don't think that will happen. And in the unlikely event that an admin did block it for that reason, someone (like me) would challenge the block and another administrator would swiftly revert the unwarranted block. So, don't worry. -kotra (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew that nothing would happen, most likely. I did, however, want to clarify, because that post by him made my heart sink a little bit. It's some weird thing that happens.. lol. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 04:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for your wise comments on 3RR. I seek politeness and scholarly improvement of Wikipedia. A Wikipedia that is sloppy is no good. Copyright rules is only one way to be sloppy. You also made some good points to clarify misconceptions of mine. I am certainly willing to admit mistakes and learn from them.

I see that you adopte editors. Would you adopt me? I ask you because of your wise comments. Sticky Parkin is also helping me. 903M (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your good intentions. It's great to see it, and I hope you will continue to help us build the project. Your adoption request honors me, but I think one adoptee is as much as I can handle right now. I don't spend a great amount of time on Wikipedia, and am often absent for days. Thank you for thinking of me, though. -kotra (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

zomg great minds think alike as I just mentioned at User talk:Xenocidic this very subject without seeing this request of 903's.:) I love being 903's adopter but I need a little extra help, simply because I'm asleep when she usually edits, so I wake up and see she's had some hastle or problems, or been blocked etc. If someone could spot any difficulties and intervene to advise at the time it might avoid some of the problems. 903 often edits between 03:00 and 08:00 GMT. Kotra, you edit at that time, do you know many other adopters who are quite active on wiki, and awake then?:) Sticky Parkin 19:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult is an editor who I've seen be very good at helping out newer editors, particularly in situations where emotions are running high, and s/he is often on between 03:00 and 08:00 UTC (more often towards the later part). Bookkeeperoftheoccult has not adopted anyone before to my knowledge, but s/he offered to a few months ago, so s/he may still be receptive to the idea. Afraid I can't think of anyone else, but you may try this list. -kotra (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Clay Aiken

Firstly, I didn't remove Category:LGBT people from the United States from this article; that tag was added independently of my edits, and I simply reverted to my edit which came before the tag was added. Secondly, Perez Hilton is more and more considered an entertainment journalist more than a "gossip blog". Michael Musto of The Village Voice began his career as simply a gossip columnist as well, but he ultimately matured into someone who is relied upon for accurate information about the entertainment business. And thirdly, though I shouldn't have phrased it in past tense, my assertion that the upcoming People Magazine cover article exists is a fact, it isn't a prediction of the future. At any rate, numerous other sources are currently reporting on the article including this one and The Chicago Sun Times, so perhaps someone like yourself will put the information back in the article. Having had my posting and editing abilities threatened for breaking the 3 edit rule (no one else involved in that editing situation received a warning), I'm not touching the article again. CouplandForever (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, when reverting, make sure you don't accidentally remove (or add) content that you have no opinion about. And whether or not you consider Perez Hilton to be a "gossip blog" is sort of missing the point: WP:RS is pretty clear about the status of blogs and other self-published sources. And yes, it now is known to be fact (since People magazine has apparently just now admitted it), but at the time of your edits, the Perez Hilton source was the only source, and that was insufficient; and, it was a prediction of the future, because the magazine in question had not been published yet. It only is now not crystal-balling because of People's admission. In any case, you cannot edit that article at the moment (and neither can I), since it has been fully protected. See Wikipedia:ANI#Clay_Aiken for the current discussion if you're curious. -kotra (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Long time getting back

When one is doing and presenting historical research and data for the sake of teaching quoting is lawful and very acceptable. It does not infringe on copyright. Kazuba (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't remember what this is about. Could you refresh my memory? -kotra (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Hey kotra. I do this sometimes: post somewhere and forget that I posted. I just went back and read the ANI thread I posted to yesterday. In this case, I should apologize, and I'm trying to decide it it's worth it to explain. In the ANI thread about Ave Cesar and CadenS, I posted "I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts." That was a muckup. I re-edited part of the sentence, and then posted it to come out as something else. It was not my original thought, and I apologize that I made it seem as if you were responsible for Caden and had shirked your duty. As for the correction of it, I don't know if it's entirely worth it for me to explain what I meant. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I interpreted your comment to mean "Adoptees are responsible for their own actions, and Adopters (or mentors) should not be required to defend their Adoptees when they're clearly in the wrong." If that's what you meant, I certainly agree. However, "disproportionately defensive posts" was linked to an old comment of Caden's, so it sounded like you were saying I shouldn't have defended Caden there. My response was that I hadn't, and that I had in fact opposed his comment. In any case, I wasn't offended, and I might have misunderstood you anyway, so we're probably wasting our time by hashing this out. Thanks for the apology, though. -kotra (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Benji's offensive choice of words

Hi Kotra. I'm not happy with Benjiboi's description of me on his recent AN/I report. I do not know what Benji's problem is but he makes me sick to my stomach. He preaches about not using pejorative words yet he turns around and uses pejorative terms to describe me in a negative light on his AN/I report. He did that on purpose, I believe. Who the hell does he think he is? How dare he describe me as "they", "their", or "them", as if I'm some kind of "thing" rather than a male human being. I am not some kind of thing! I have a name as well as a gender. He fully well knows that. I've never been so insulted or so offended by a fellow editor before. His choice of words used to describe me are shocking and abusive as far as I'm concerned. I will not tolerate that from him. I resent him referring to me as "they", "their", or "them". How would Benji like it if I began to refer to him as "it", huh? Do you think he would like that? I highly doubt so. He has yet to apologize to me for his offensive choice of words. He had no right to use such hateful and degrading terms to describe me. I want him to edit these words out of the report. If he doesn't do that, then I will be forced to remove the offensive words myself. It's already bad enough that he's attacked my good faith edits as "vandalism." But, I will not stand to be referred as a "their", "them", or "they". I'm sorry about all this but I'm really offended and see his actions as personal attacks against me. Caden S (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Caden, I agree that the AN/I report was ill-advised, and I've been discussing that on AN/I with him. However, I don't think "they/their/them" was meant as an insult. Editors often use gender-neutral language like "them" or "s/he" on Wikipedia because gender doesn't matter as much here, and because it's often hard to know. It's true that Benji probably did know you were male, but I bet he just used "them" because it sounded like he was less personally invested in the issue. Or something. I don't know why he did, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant like "it". If you want to know for sure, you can always ask him, or I can if you want. Anyway, I'm sorry you felt insulted, but I think it probably was just a misunderstanding. -kotra (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

His words were meant to insult me. That's what I believe and feel. I refuse to be referred to by gender-neutral language. I'm not comfortable with that type of ugly language. I'm also not comfortable working with an editor who disrespects me by calling me a "thing", even after I asked him many times to call me by my name or to refer to me as "he". If you want you can talk to him for me. On a side-note I'm highly disappointed in Moni. Anyways, thanks Kotra. Caden S (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Though we disagree on Benji's intent, I have asked him to stop using "them/they/their", and instead use "him/he/his" from now on. -kotra (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's okay for both you and I to disagree. Thank you for telling him to stop calling me those offensive words. Caden S (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Benji and I discussed it, and it seems to be a habit of his to use gender-neutral language on Wikipedia, but I've convinced him to try to make an exception for you. Since it is a habit for him though, there's a chance he'll make a mistake. If that happens, I'd try not to let it bother you if you can. -kotra (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kotra, but that is incorrect and simply not true. Based on his past edit history (on both his summaries and posts), he did not use this gender-neutral type of language. If there's a chance he'll make mistakes, I firmly believe it will be intentional. I've lost any type of good faith for an editor who refuses to respect my wishes by enforcing his offensive terminolgy to describe me. I believe he will continue to refer to me as, "they", "their" or "them". If my wishes can't be met, then I will lose all respect for him, both as an editor as well as a human being. I'd prefer not to, however, he leaves me no choice by continuing to disrespect me. That's a shame if it comes to this because I do believe that Benji has done some good work on here. On a side-note I'm puzzled by a post you left on his talk page. Particularly this part: "I certainly will defend you if anyone accuses you of commenting on the contributor rather than the content. It shouldn't come to that, though." I'm afraid its already arrived at that. His lack of assuming good faith is clear on the ANI reprt. He's accusation that I was working together with Ave Ceasar in preventing him from achieving his GA nominee of Jesse Dirkhising, was a personal attack on me. That was bad faith on his part. He referring to my edits as vandalism was another personal attack and yet again bad faith. Furthermore, his accusation that I was misreprenting the sources, was also a personal attack. Benji is the one who's misrepresented several points on the sources he provided, but I'm not going to go into that now. Although I do thank you for all your help and guidance as my adopter, this quote of yours above has left me feeling unsure about our match as adopter/adoptee. Caden S (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment a little. I was saying that if Benji called you "he", and if someone else saw it and thought he was being too familiar with you, commenting on the contributor instead of the content, I would defend him for using "he", because that's what you strongly prefer. So I was trying to help you out by offering to defend Benji for using "he" with you. Anyway, I agree that Benji has lobbed some accusations your way that fail to assume good faith. On the other hand, you haven't assumed good faith either. I am trying to help you, but it's very hard for me to help when you keep angrily accusing other editors. But I'm doing the best I can. If you think someone else could do a better job helping you, I won't be offended if you ask them to adopt/mentor you. But I think we can probably move past this whole recent dispute if you agree to stay away from sexuality-related articles. I really do think you have made some good progress, and I do want to see you continue to help build Wikipedia. Whatever you decide, I hope you can move past this, which must be stressful for you. -kotra (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry Kotra. Looks like I did misunderstand your comment a little. Alright then. I now understand what you're saying about possibly defending Benji for using "he", if someone else saw it and thought he was being too familiar with me. Anyway, I agree that Benji has lobbed some negative accusations my way that fail to assume good faith. However, at the same time, I haven't assumed good faith either. And I feel bad for this. I do understand that you're trying to help me and I sincerely appreciate that. I really do need your help, your guidance and your feedback. I fear that without you as my adopter I will more than likely end up being blocked for my behavior, especially since I recently lost my cool over this ugly gender-neutral language business. If it's okay with you I would like to keep you as my adopter. You've been the most helpful, the most fair, the most honest editor I ever met on Wikipedia. I trust, value and respect your opinion and feedback. I agree that we can probably move past this whole recent dispute issue. However, I don't believe staying away from sexuality-related articles is the solution. Please see my recent posts on this matter at the ANI page. In regards to my making some good progress as an editor, I thank you for noticing that. I do want to continue to help build Wikipedia. I enjoy editing and helping out. Although I don't know what the outcome of the ANI report will be, I just would like to move past this. Whether or not I'll be blocked or have restrictions enforced upon me, I find it all stressful not knowing what's the deal. Caden S (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) No problem, thanks for understanding. I'm still happy to be your adopter. I don't mind advocating for you, but I won't be able to protect you from a block or other restrictions if the community decides it's necessary. I don't think it will be a block this time, though. And I agree, it is a bit frustrating to not know what the deal is. Sometimes AN/I discussions go slow, sometimes they go fast. I think this one has slowed down, but hopefully an administrator will come along with some options soon. If there's a solution where you can keep editing sexuality-related articles peacefully, I'm all for that. I guess we just have to wait. Try not to let it stress you out in the meantime, maybe do something fun instead. -kotra (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you won't be able to protect me regardless of what the end result will be. If there's a solution that permits me to continue to edit sexuality-related articles peacefully, I'd be happy with that. Until I know for sure, I'm just going to take your advice and do something fun instead of stressing over this. On a side-note could you please ask Realist to stop speaking on my behalf as if I gave him consent? I never gave him consent and I'm getting rather annoyed that he's posted several misleading posts regarding this matter. I do believe his intentions are good though, but I never agreed to any type of solution with him. Caden S (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave him a note. -kotra (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My stalker Realist2 is back at it

I can't believe it but my wiki stalker is back at it sticking his nose where it don't belong, over at the AN/I report. After he was warned by you, Booker, Jay and others to stop. He even agreed and promised me that he would stop. And now he's back at it with more threats. I'm fed up with him harassing me. I'm sick of him stalking me and watching my every move on Wikipedia. Can't you please make him stop? I'm already stressed out with Benji's personal attacks. It's bad enough that Benji is referring to me as "they", "them", or "their". I'm at the end of my rope here and I need your help. Caden S (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS I'm not stalking you at all! There is a HUGE post about you at ANI. It's quite hard to avoid you know. You also broke your promise not to edit articles on sexuality. Then I see a post where you tell another editor that they disgust you. Christ CadenS, I'm not out to get you, I tried to help you the other week. I'm strongly advising you as a friend (I consider use on friendly terms) to stop editing these kinds of articles before your blocked. You are doing some wonderful work on other articles on wikipedia, but this other stuff is too much for you I think. I don't want to see you blocked, I really don't. Please calm down, before you get yourself into more trouble, please Caden. You love wikipedia (I hope), and we want you here. But you have your hot buttons for understandable reasons. Please make yourself some coffee or tea, take a chill and come back to what you do best. :-) — Realist² 16:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a post just about me. It's about another editor too. Regardless, thank you for the kind words and the positive feedback on my other articles. I appreciate it. Your point is taken on your suggestion concerning those other articles. And yes, it's true, I do love editing on Wikipedia. I don't want to be blocked. But lately I'm having a hard time with another editor who's being a real problem. I'm trying to keep a cool head. I'm doing my best from cussing up a storm. Caden S (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I might also add that I have had to stop editing certain article my friends edit to allow you space. I see a lot of friends like bookkeeper editing exciting articles (I like editing controversial articles as you know) and I feel like a complete outsider, when I could help chip in. Even though you promised not to edit these articles I let it go to give you space, preventing me from editing them in the process. Then I help you out the other day, and now your issuing bad faith attacks against me. Still, I hold nothing against you and do consider you an asset to this community. — Realist² 16:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Having viewed this thread at WP:AN/I, my instinct is to restrict CadenS from articles on sexuality for a defined period of time (e.g. 1-3 months) and ask him to edit elsewhere for that timespan. Since you (kotra) are mentoring him, I wanted to run this by you. What are your thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing all of this, I'm afraid that I agree that Caden's temper flares when working on sexuality-related articles. That said, I just want to note that he has sometimes been a positive help on these sexuality-related articles, but unfortunately I'm not sure if it's worth all the anger and fighting behind the scenes. So I would be ok with a restriction on articles about sexuality. I would like to agree with Realist, though, that he has usually been very helpful and an asset to the community on other articles, and his behavior had improved greatly until this recent flare-up. So I would support a topic restriction, but in the interests of the project, not a complete block. -kotra (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree entirely, a complete block would be to the detriment of the community, a restriction on sexuality articles for a set time period would be better. There should also be someone to review CadenS contributions to sexuality articles when the restriction expires. — Realist² 17:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kotra, since you've been working with CadenS and I'm a newcomer to this situation, I will leave it to you to impose whatever restriction and time frame you feel is most appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded on MastCell's talk page. -kotra (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Something about it does not look right

Hi Kotra. I'm not sure what's going on with the ANI report, but something about it does not look right to me. At this particular moment I am not thrilled with Moni. I'm very disappointed to see what she has done. I feel she shifted the spotlight from the original content dispute (of which the report is supposed to be about) to my behavior. It makes no sense. By her having done so, I feel she's misleading other editors into assuming the report was filed only against myself and that it is based on my behavior. This is not true. The report was made against both I and Ave Caesar and was based on a content dispute and nothing more. But now, I'm singled out as the bad guy. That's what I see happening. What are your thoughts on this? I believe that if she wanted to discuss a behavior issue, she could've contacted both you or I on our talk pages. I'm no longer watching the ANI page due to these reasons. I'd appreciate it if you could watch that page and contact me if need be. I have no answers to my questions and I'm not sure if you can answer them for me. Caden S (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you were singled out because of your more recent comments, and because there had been another AN/I report about you. It does seem a bit unfair though that Ave Caeser is not getting hardly any attention at all. I will comment about that on the AN/I report. I will also ask about what other members of the community think should be done (if anything). I don't feel uninvolved enough to decide myself. Since your last comment, the only response has been Benji's, where he says why he thinks the focus is on you. I don't blame you for not wanting to watch that page, it's hard to keep track of. But I will be watching it, and I'll keep you updated on what's happening. -kotra (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now created a section on options and a section on Ave Caesar. You don't need to comment yet, this is just to let you know what's happening. I can give these updates on your talk page if you prefer. -kotra (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree but it's a little unfair that a past AN/I is being used to support the current one. The two reports are quite different. Thanks for creating the section on options and the separate section on Ave Caesar. I appreciate you doing so. Concerning updates, I'd prefer to receive them on your talk page instead of my own. As mentioned before, I'm no longer watching the AN/I page. Thanks again for all your help in this. I will pop in and out on Wikipedia today. My girlfriend and I have been painting all weekend and we have one room left to paint. Unfortunately for me, I will be painting solo today. Nevertheless, I will check in as often as I can. Caden S (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm right here, and you are more than welcome to express your dissatisfaction with my comments at your will, on my talk page even. I know you are not shy in expressing your opinion. I think my comments on the ANI page are clear enough, so I don't think they need further expansion. No doubt they may have been difficult to read, but they are quite legitimate. It's not ok to tell other editors they disgust you for something as simple as using gender-neutral pronouns, which by reading the ANI page on almost any day, will show that it's common among many editors. I know you've mentioned to Benji that you are male, but the intense personal offense you took at an everyday method of communication on Wiki was not deserved. I say the following because I know you are interested in Wikipedia and improving articles: you're in danger of becoming a caricature of an editor with a grudge. Such vehemence in your posts is so odd (we really want to hang you by your balls? that comment made me laugh out loud) that to assume good faith I have to weed out the unnecessary commentary, sarcasm, and the stress in your posts to figure out what your real problems with articles are. After too much of these impulsive reactionary posts by you, at least I will glance over your posts without paying them attention, and other editors may follow suit.

Personally to you, I suggest that you are allowing comments to insult you. You give other editors permission to bother you by caring what they say. I've been referred to as male, female, and in between, and I don't care. You apparently do. Would it not be easier for you and for the editors with whom you disagree to let questionable comments go without notice? If I didn't know Benji, I might think that the simple reference to you in the gender-neutral would manipulate you to spinning like a top with rage. Do you really want to be that easy to control? You could list any number of epithets about my race, religion, sexual orientation, or some other characteristic, and it would not bother me in the least. I just don't know you enough to allow your opinion to bother me.

I come to Wikipedia because it's fun and I find it interesting. When it becomes unfun and I battle regularly in unpleasant scenarios, I will consider not returning. I can't imagine the anger behind the "You disgust me" post is fun for you. Were I your mentor, the constant need to talk you out of these angry outbursts and intervene on your behalf would be tiring. Even 12-year-olds who come to Wikipedia are expected to be civil and behave in a cooperative manner, without an admin or mentor to tell them how to address other editors. So kudos for kotra for doing this, but there will come a time when the most insulting, enraging discussion on Wikipedia will call for your behavior alone. There will soon be a day when there's no one to speak for you. I heartily believe that people can and should behave better than what is expected of them, if only because it's more difficult than telling each other to piss off. I like to embrace a challenge and there's nothing more challenging than receiving an apparent insult and responding with respect and kindness. --Moni3 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Caden, one last update: the AN/I report was automatically archived today/yesterday. Concerning the options that I suggested, only one editor offered an opinion (Realist2, who was in favor of recruiting an extra mentor). Basically, it seems like hardly anyone really cares about this anymore, so I think we should just put it behind us and move on. If you want to get a second mentor or take a break from articles like Jesse Dirkhising for a while, I'd support you on that. I could help you find the mentor if you want to go that route. But it's entirely up to you. If you want to just go back to editing as usual (but staying cool in disputes, of course), that works too. -kotra (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'm not sure if it's necessary for me to have a second mentor. However, if you think it's best then I'm okay with that. Caden S (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think it's necessary. As long as you assume good faith and remain calm in disputes, you'll be fine. -kotra (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: CadenS editing Jesse Dirkhising, this edit summary is not helpful, is uncivil, and fails to assume good faith.[1] There seems to be a history, which is why I'm posting this here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -kotra (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving issh.

In re: Geber, I actually "dearchived" first so that the archiving program can label the individual discussion properly and won't overwrite the existing archived material. It will auto-archive sometime this evening, and the page will be properly archived.

My apologies for any apparent confusion. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. I'm still a little confused, though: what was wrong with the original manually-created archive that an archiving bot will improve upon? I don't mean to come across as defensive, I genuinely want to learn from any mistakes I made. -kotra (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it, but automated archiving is, well, automated. Plus it lists everything by topic... easier to read the archives. So I put the manual bits back and let the automated one do its magic so as to have the ToC most available. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 05:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I can't help but notice, though, that the archive index the bot created is incomplete, missing the sections that had been written with level 1 headers =Like this=. Not the bot's fault, it can't pick up on human mistakes like that... but it means that the archive index isn't completely helpful in this particular case. I also see that the stuff I manually archived before hadn't been removed from the archive page before the bot re-archived it all, so there is a lot of repetition on the archive page (not complete repetition at first, since it missed the level 1 header sections, but you added those manually later). So most, if not all, of the sections are in the archive page twice now, which isn't really a problem, but in the future you should delete all the archived stuff when you de-archive a page. But I can't help but wonder if this is all worth the trouble. Oh well, no big deal, either way. -kotra (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Goldblum

(moved comments to bottom of page as per WP:TALK -kotra (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Kotra, do not remove my statements about Jeff Golblum as "vandalism", since it is not vandalism, and the controversy surrouding Jeff Goldblum watching people "poop" is a real issue that people often wonder about. You are removing information that is not false - STOP IT.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NotGrandma (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 October 2008

I understand that "jeff goldbum is watching you poop" is hysterically funny, but there is a real belief behind it too. It is believed by many to be fact, and has not been disprove. It is as accurate as the statement made saying that Jeff is with a girl because of tabloid photos.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NotGrandma (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 October 2008

Thanks for sharing your concern, NotGrandma. If this is an actual controversy, you will need to give a source documenting the controversy, like a newspaper or magazine article, an interview with Mr. Goldblum, or anything that meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. We need reliable sources for controversial facts as per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, particularly for biographies of living persons. If you don't give a source, we will continue to see your additions of this information as vandalism. Sorry about that, but that's how it works on Wikipedia.

Also, I see you are new so you may be unfamiliar with how talk pages work. When you want to start a new discussion on a talk page, click the "new section" tab at the top. That will start a new section at the bottom of the page, which is where all new discussions go (the newer a discussion is, the farther down the page it goes). Also, it's important to sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes ~~~~ (the ~ is next to your 1 key). Hope this helps. -kotra (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the information, I did not know about the criteria for controversial statements. I also did not know about how the talk worked. I will investigate for sources further. Does Urban Dictionary count, since it is public and has approval from other users? Thanks again for the tip. NotGrandma (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Unfortunately, Urban Dictionary doesn't qualify as a reliable source, since it can say anything (and frequently does). We don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source for that same reason. Think more along the lines of (non-tabloid) newspapers, magazines, interviews, reputably published biographies, etc. -kotra (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Must have been drunk

Yeah, I don't really remember writing that and reading it now I can't really understand why I would have been so fired up. I suspected for a moment that someone may have added to my statement. But I really did write it. Oh well. Thanks for pointing it out anyways.--Matt D (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Talkback!

Hello, Kotra. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oregon COTW

Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another edition of the fabled COTW. Thank you to all who helped make improvements to Wayne Morse and creating some members of the Oregon House. This week, we have by request Upper Klamath Lake which think made the news lately with a salmon plan. Then, in honor of the end of the harvest time, we will go farming with Fort Stevens. There is a beautiful link farm in the article that is ripe for harvesting into citations. It should provide for a bountiful feast, or alternatively you can take your hoe to it and weed some out. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. WARNING: COTW is not approved for children under 3 and may contain choking hazards for small children. DO NOT leave your child unattended with COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Usernames

Thanks for posting the notification on User:Rosemary.owens.22's talk - I managed to misread the instructions pretty badly. On the plus side, I've notified a possibly related editor of a similar problem, so hopefully I have at least the first part of the process down now. :) Thanks again, Bilby (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your understanding. I've found it helpful to lurk a bit to see how the process works, and admittedly the WP:RFC/NAME process isn't nearly as straightforward as the name "requests for comment" implies, which perhaps it should be. In any case, your notification of a user with a similar problem looks spot on. -kotra (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: SulaDead

Heh, alright.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: What's up?

Hi Kotra, I apologize for not having contacted you sooner. I had a car accident on November the 17th that left me with bruises, a few minor cuts and needing emergency eye surgery to my left eye. I'm okay though and my eye is healing well. I was still able to attend classes and have just finished with exams. Unfortunately, I can't play soccer for a couple of months and I'm without a car temporarily. I'm pretty much bummed out over these two things. The good (miracle?) thing is my girlfriend was not injured in the crash and walked away without a scratch. But thank you for asking, I appreciate that. By the way, I'm still a Wikipedian. I'll be on when I can. Caden S (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. I'm glad to hear that you're ok. Hope you find something fun to do while you recover, and don't worry about Wikipedia if you don't feel up to it. You're a good help, but it seems to get along ok without us when we're away. -kotra (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kotra. Caden S (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! — Aitias // discussion 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I won't have any problem using it appropriately, and understand it can be removed at any time. -kotra (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)